Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Diablo Canyon Power Plant Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 8152-8153 [2010-3499]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
8152
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 23, 2010 / Notices
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
[Docket Nos. 50–275 and 50–323; NRC–
2010–0059]
The NRC has completed its
environmental assessment of the
proposed exemption. The staff has
concluded that the proposed action to
extend the implementation deadline
would not significantly affect plant
safety and would not have a significant
adverse effect on the probability of an
accident occurring.
The proposed action would not result
in an increased radiological hazard
beyond those previously analyzed in the
environmental assessment and finding
of no significant impact made by the
Commission in promulgating its
revisions to 10 CFR Part 73 as discussed
in a Federal Register notice dated
March 27, 2009 (74 FR 13926). There
will be no change to radioactive
effluents that affect radiation exposures
to plant workers and members of the
public. Therefore, no changes or
different types of radiological impacts
are expected as a result of the proposed
exemption.
The proposed action does not result
in changes to land use or water use, or
result in changes to the quality or
quantity of non-radiological effluents.
No changes to the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System permit
are needed. No effects on the aquatic or
terrestrial habitat in the vicinity of the
plant, or to threatened, endangered, or
protected species under the Endangered
Species Act, or impacts to essential fish
habitat covered by the MagnusonSteven’s Act are expected. There are no
impacts to the air or ambient air quality.
There are no impacts to historical and
cultural resources.
There would be no impact to
socioeconomic resources. Therefore, no
changes to or different types of nonradiological environmental impacts are
expected as a result of the proposed
exemption.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that
there are no significant environmental
impacts associated with the proposed
action. In addition, in promulgating its
revisions to 10 CFR Part 73, the
Commission prepared an environmental
assessment and published a finding of
no significant impact [Part 73, Power
Reactor Security Requirements, 74 FR
13926 (March 27, 2009)].
With its request to extend the
implementation deadline, the licensee
currently maintains a security system
acceptable to the NRC and that will
continue to provide acceptable physical
protection of the DCPP in lieu of the
new requirements in 10 CFR Part 73.
Therefore, the extension of the
implementation date of the new
Pacific Gas and Electric Company;
Diablo Canyon Power Plant
Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of an exemption, pursuant to
Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) Section 73.5,
‘‘Specific exemptions,’’ from the
implementation date for certain new
requirements of 10 CFR Part 73,
‘‘Physical protection of plants and
materials,’’ for Facility Operating
License Nos. DPR–80 and DPR–82,
issued to Pacific Gas and Electric
Company (PG&E, the licensee), for
operation of the Diablo Canyon Power
Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (DCPP), located
in San Luis Obispo County, California.
In accordance with 10 CFR 51.21, the
NRC prepared an environmental
assessment documenting its finding.
The NRC concluded that the proposed
actions will have no significant
environmental impact.
Environmental Assessment
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would exempt
PG&E from the required implementation
date of March 31, 2010, for several new
requirements of 10 CFR Part 73.
Specifically, PG&E would be granted an
exemption from being in full
compliance with certain new
requirements contained in 10 CFR 73.55
by the March 31, 2010, deadline. PG&E
has proposed an alternate full
compliance implementation date of June
30, 2011, approximately 15 months
beyond the date required by 10 CFR Part
73. The proposed action, an extension of
the schedule for completion of certain
actions required by the revised 10 CFR
Part 73, does not involve any physical
changes to the reactor, fuel, plant
structures, support structures, water, or
land at the PG&E site.
The proposed action is in accordance
with the licensee’s application dated
December 4, 2009.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is needed to
provide the licensee with additional
time to perform the required upgrades to
the PG&E security system to meet the
new requirements in 10 CFR Part 73.
Implementation of the new
requirements will involve physical
modifications to the existing plant
security system.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:25 Feb 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00122
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
requirements of 10 CFR Part 73 to June
30, 2011, would not have any significant
environmental impacts.
The NRC staff’s safety evaluation will
be provided in the exemption that will
be issued as part of the letter to the
licensee approving the exemption to the
regulation, if granted.
Environmental Impacts of the
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed
actions, the NRC staff considered denial
of the proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘noaction’’ alternative). Denial of the
exemption request would result in no
change in current environmental
impacts. If the proposed action was
denied, the licensee would have to
comply with the March 31, 2010,
implementation deadline. The
environmental impacts of the proposed
exemption and the ‘‘no-action’’
alternative are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of
any different resources than those
considered in the Final Environmental
Statement for the DCPP, dated May
1973, with Addendum dated May 1976.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy,
on January 20, 2010, the NRC staff
consulted with the California State
official, Mr. Stephen Hsu of the
California Department of Public Health,
regarding the environmental impact of
the proposed action. The State official
had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the environmental
assessment, the NRC concludes that the
proposed action will not have a
significant effect on the quality of the
human environment. Accordingly, the
NRC has determined not to prepare an
environmental impact statement for the
proposed action.
Portions of the December 4, 2009,
submittal contain security-related and
safeguards information and,
accordingly, is being withheld from the
public. For further details with respect
to the proposed action, see the redacted
version of the December 4, 2009, letter
submitted by the licensee on January 22,
2010. The non-proprietary, public
version of this document may be
examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the
NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR),
located at One White Flint North, Public
File Area O–1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Publicly available records will be
accessible electronically from the
Agencywide Documents Access and
E:\FR\FM\23FEN1.SGM
23FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 23, 2010 / Notices
Management System (ADAMS) Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet
at the NRC Web site: https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
Persons who do not have access to
ADAMS or who encounter problems in
accessing the documents located in
ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR
Reference staff by telephone at 1–800–
397–4209 or 301–415–4737, or send an
e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
date required by 10 CFR Part 73. The
proposed action, an extension of the
schedule for completion of certain
actions required by the revised 10 CFR
Part 73, does not involve any physical
changes to the reactor, fuel, plant
structures, support structures, water, or
land at the NPPD site.
The proposed action is in accordance
with the licensee’s application dated
December 22, 2009.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day
of February 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James R. Hall,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing
Branch IV, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is needed to
provide the licensee with additional
time to perform the required upgrades to
the NPPD security system due to
resource and logistical impacts of the
fall 2009 refueling outage and other
factors, including inclement weather.
[FR Doc. 2010–3499 Filed 2–22–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–298; NRC–2010–0061]
Nebraska Public Power District;
Cooper Nuclear Station Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of an exemption, pursuant to
Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) Section 73.5,
‘‘Specific exemptions,’’ from the
implementation date for certain new
requirements of 10 CFR Part 73,
‘‘Physical protection of plants and
materials,’’ for Facility Operating
License No. DPR–46, issued to Nebraska
Public Power District (NPPD, the
licensee), for operation of the Cooper
Nuclear Station (CNS), located in
Nemaha County, Nebraska. Therefore, as
required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC
performed an environmental
assessment. Based on the results of the
environmental assessment, the NRC is
issuing a finding of no significant
impact.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would exempt
NPPD from the required implementation
date of March 31, 2010, for several new
requirements of 10 CFR Part 73.
Specifically, NPPD would be granted an
exemption from being in full
compliance with certain new
requirements contained in 10 CFR 73.55
by the March 31, 2010, deadline. NPPD
has proposed an alternate full
compliance implementation date of
August 31, 2010, 5 months beyond the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:25 Feb 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
The NRC has completed its
environmental assessment of the
proposed exemption. The staff has
concluded that the proposed action to
extend the implementation deadline
would not significantly affect plant
safety and would not have a significant
adverse effect on the probability of an
accident occurring.
The proposed action would not result
in an increased radiological hazard
beyond those previously analyzed in the
environmental assessment and finding
of no significant impact made by the
Commission in promulgating its
revisions to 10 CFR Part 73 as discussed
in a Federal Register notice dated
March 27, 2009 (74 FR 13926). There
will be no change to radioactive
effluents that affect radiation exposures
to plant workers and members of the
public. Therefore, no changes or
different types of radiological impacts
are expected as a result of the proposed
exemption.
The proposed action does not result
in changes to land use or water use, or
result in changes to the quality or
quantity of non-radiological effluents.
No changes to the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System permit
are needed. No effects on the aquatic or
terrestrial habitat in the vicinity of the
plant, or to threatened, endangered, or
protected species under the Endangered
Species Act, or impacts to essential fish
habitat covered by the MagnusonSteven’s Act are expected. There are no
impacts to the air or ambient air quality.
There are no impacts to historical and
cultural resources. There would be no
impact to socioeconomic resources.
Therefore, no changes to or different
types of non-radiological environmental
impacts are expected as a result of the
proposed exemption.
PO 00000
Frm 00123
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
8153
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that
there are no significant environmental
impacts associated with the proposed
action. In addition, in promulgating its
revisions to 10 CFR Part 73, the
Commission prepared an environmental
assessment and published a finding of
no significant impact [Part 73, Power
Reactor Security Requirements, 74 FR
13926 (March 27, 2009)].
The NRC staff’s safety evaluation will
be provided in the exemption that will
be issued as part of the letter to the
licensee approving the exemption to the
regulation, if granted.
Environmental Impacts of the
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed
actions, the NRC staff considered denial
of the proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘noaction’’ alternative). Denial of the
exemption request would result in no
change in current environmental
impacts. If the proposed action was
denied, the licensee would have to
comply with the March 31, 2010,
implementation deadline. The
environmental impacts of the proposed
exemption and the ‘‘no-action’’
alternative are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of
any different resources than those
considered in the Final Environmental
Statement for the Cooper Nuclear
Station dated February 1973.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy,
on January 5, 2010, the NRC staff
consulted with the Nebraska State
official, Ms. J. Schmitt of the Office of
Radiological Health, regarding the
environmental impact of the proposed
action. The State official had no
comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the environmental
assessment, the NRC concludes that the
proposed action will not have a
significant effect on the quality of the
human environment. Accordingly, the
NRC has determined not to prepare an
environmental impact statement for the
proposed action.
For further details with respect to the
proposed action, see the licensee’s letter
dated December 22, 2009. Portions of
the document contain security-related
information and, accordingly, are not
available to the public. Other parts of
the document may be examined, and/or
copied for a fee, at the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR), located at One
White Flint North, Public File Area O–
1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
E:\FR\FM\23FEN1.SGM
23FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8152-8153]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-3499]
[[Page 8152]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323; NRC-2010-0059]
Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Diablo Canyon Power Plant
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of an exemption, pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) Section 73.5, ``Specific exemptions,'' from the
implementation date for certain new requirements of 10 CFR Part 73,
``Physical protection of plants and materials,'' for Facility Operating
License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82, issued to Pacific Gas and Electric
Company (PG&E, the licensee), for operation of the Diablo Canyon Power
Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (DCPP), located in San Luis Obispo County,
California. In accordance with 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC prepared an
environmental assessment documenting its finding. The NRC concluded
that the proposed actions will have no significant environmental
impact.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would exempt PG&E from the required
implementation date of March 31, 2010, for several new requirements of
10 CFR Part 73. Specifically, PG&E would be granted an exemption from
being in full compliance with certain new requirements contained in 10
CFR 73.55 by the March 31, 2010, deadline. PG&E has proposed an
alternate full compliance implementation date of June 30, 2011,
approximately 15 months beyond the date required by 10 CFR Part 73. The
proposed action, an extension of the schedule for completion of certain
actions required by the revised 10 CFR Part 73, does not involve any
physical changes to the reactor, fuel, plant structures, support
structures, water, or land at the PG&E site.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application dated December 4, 2009.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is needed to provide the licensee with
additional time to perform the required upgrades to the PG&E security
system to meet the new requirements in 10 CFR Part 73. Implementation
of the new requirements will involve physical modifications to the
existing plant security system.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC has completed its environmental assessment of the proposed
exemption. The staff has concluded that the proposed action to extend
the implementation deadline would not significantly affect plant safety
and would not have a significant adverse effect on the probability of
an accident occurring.
The proposed action would not result in an increased radiological
hazard beyond those previously analyzed in the environmental assessment
and finding of no significant impact made by the Commission in
promulgating its revisions to 10 CFR Part 73 as discussed in a Federal
Register notice dated March 27, 2009 (74 FR 13926). There will be no
change to radioactive effluents that affect radiation exposures to
plant workers and members of the public. Therefore, no changes or
different types of radiological impacts are expected as a result of the
proposed exemption.
The proposed action does not result in changes to land use or water
use, or result in changes to the quality or quantity of non-
radiological effluents. No changes to the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System permit are needed. No effects on the aquatic or
terrestrial habitat in the vicinity of the plant, or to threatened,
endangered, or protected species under the Endangered Species Act, or
impacts to essential fish habitat covered by the Magnuson-Steven's Act
are expected. There are no impacts to the air or ambient air quality.
There are no impacts to historical and cultural resources.
There would be no impact to socioeconomic resources. Therefore, no
changes to or different types of non-radiological environmental impacts
are expected as a result of the proposed exemption.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. In addition,
in promulgating its revisions to 10 CFR Part 73, the Commission
prepared an environmental assessment and published a finding of no
significant impact [Part 73, Power Reactor Security Requirements, 74 FR
13926 (March 27, 2009)].
With its request to extend the implementation deadline, the
licensee currently maintains a security system acceptable to the NRC
and that will continue to provide acceptable physical protection of the
DCPP in lieu of the new requirements in 10 CFR Part 73. Therefore, the
extension of the implementation date of the new requirements of 10 CFR
Part 73 to June 30, 2011, would not have any significant environmental
impacts.
The NRC staff's safety evaluation will be provided in the exemption
that will be issued as part of the letter to the licensee approving the
exemption to the regulation, if granted.
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed actions, the NRC staff considered
denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative).
Denial of the exemption request would result in no change in current
environmental impacts. If the proposed action was denied, the licensee
would have to comply with the March 31, 2010, implementation deadline.
The environmental impacts of the proposed exemption and the ``no-
action'' alternative are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of any different resources than
those considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the DCPP,
dated May 1973, with Addendum dated May 1976.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on January 20, 2010, the NRC
staff consulted with the California State official, Mr. Stephen Hsu of
the California Department of Public Health, regarding the environmental
impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined
not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed
action.
Portions of the December 4, 2009, submittal contain security-
related and safeguards information and, accordingly, is being withheld
from the public. For further details with respect to the proposed
action, see the redacted version of the December 4, 2009, letter
submitted by the licensee on January 22, 2010. The non-proprietary,
public version of this document may be examined, and/or copied for a
fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White
Flint North, Public File Area O-1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly available records will be
accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and
[[Page 8153]]
Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the
Internet at the NRC Web site: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in
accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR
Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or send
an e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of February 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James R. Hall,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV, Division of
Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010-3499 Filed 2-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
